I have the same "MUSt->SHOULD" problem as for ISSUE-40: maybe complement this indication with best practice guidelines? as
informative only.
For our part, I think we should add an example to justify why this restriction is useful
-Paolo
> Currently, use has the following definition with respect to roles:
>
> "A reference to a given BOB may appear in multiple use assertions that refer to a given process execution, but each of those use
> assertions must have a distinct role."
>
> A process execution could conceivably read the same file twice. Thus, the file would play the same role twice with respect to a
> process execution. It's not clear why this constraint is an absolute or the impact of making it a non-hard requirement.
>
> Although, I can see why it would be recommended practice in order to ensure disambiguation of roles.
>
> Suggested resolution, change the sentence to as follows:
>
> "A reference to a given BOB may appear in multiple use assertions that refer to a given process execution, but each of those use
> assertions should have a distinct role."
--
----------- ~oo~ --------------
Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier